Sri C. Suresh

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Friday, this the 26th day of June, 2020.

Present: Sri C. Suresh,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.94 of 2013

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Dummugudem.

...Complainant

and

1. Vissampalli Nagendra Babu, S/o.Balaraju, 35 years, Photographer (A1).

2. Vissampalli Balaraju, S/o.Narsaiah, 59 years, agriculture (A2).

3. Vissampalli Rajamma, W/o.Balaraju, 55 years, Housewife (A3). All R/o.Seetanagaram of Dummugudem Mandal. ( Case against A2 was abated vide docket Order dated.02.03.2016) ( Case against A1 was Split-up vide C.C.No.62/2019 vide docket order dated.22.1.2019) …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 13-03-2020 for hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri P.Masthan Babu, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case bigamy by marrying again during the life time of a husband and concealment of the former marriage and cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property, abetting and intended to insult the modesty of a woman, which occurred on 01.10.2011 at Seethanagaram village, which arises out of Crime No.51/2012 of

P.S.Dummugudem wherein the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable U/s.494, 420 IPC and A2 and A3 have committed the offences punishable U/s.494, 420 r/w.109 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case according to the charge-sheet are that the complainant is wife of A1, A2 and A3 are parents of A1, the complainant is having two children through her first husband, who died about 9 yearsback and she is eking out her livelihood by doing coolie works. On 16.11.2006 A1 got married the complainant as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community at Sri Bhakta Anjaneya Swamy temple, Bhadrachalam and got photographed before elders and others and after the marriage the A1 lived with the 2 complainant along with her children under one roof in the house of complainant at

Aswapuram, after 3 months of the marriage A1 took Rs.80,000/- from the complainant on the pretext to establish computer shop in the complex of Kandula Venkataiah at Aswapuram, A2 to A4 (A4 was deleted before filing ofo chargesheet) came to Aswapuram, since then the A1 used to pick-up quarrels with the complainant and harassing her and her children, due to which she lodged report before P.S.Aswapuram vide Cr.No.19/2008 U/s.498-A IPC and A1 was convicted by the Hon’ble JMFC, Manuguru and also filed DVC case against all the accused, the Hon’ble Court granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and directed all the accused to return the stridhana of Rs.80,000/-, but the accused failed to do so and A1 secretly married one Doddi Rathnam, D/o.Doddi Babu without giving divorce to the complainant. A1 with collusion of all the accused harassed the complainant physically and mentally. Basing on Private complaint of complainant the learned JMFC, Manuguru referred the complaint to S.H.O., P.S. Aswapuram, who after registration of case in Crime No.45/2012 transferred the case to S.H.O., P.S. Dummugudem.

On 09-09-2012 at 1900 hours on receipt of CD file from P.S. Aswapuram through

Asst.Superintendent of Police, Bhadrachalam with instruction to take-up the case and investigation, the S.I. of Police, P.S. Dummugudem re-registered a case in Crime No.51/2012

U/s.494, 495, 420, 109, 114, 509 r/w.34 IPC r/w.Sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared

Crime Details Form and on 30.10.2012 LW.8 arrested A1, on 30.11.2012 LW.9 apprehended

A2 and A3 and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against A1 to A3 for the offences U/s.494, 495, 420, 109, 114, 509 r/w.34 IPC, Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C by deleting the name of A4 after obtaining permission from A.S.P. Bhadrachalam vide C.No.267/Cr./SDO-

D/2012, dated.31.12.2012.

4.This case was taken on file for the offences U/sec.494, 420 IPC against A1 and 494, 420 r/w.109 IPC against A2 and A3 by one of my predecessors-in-office and the process was issued.

5.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to A1 to A3 as required U/sec. 207 3

Cr.P.C. During the pendency of case, the case against A2 was abated vide docket Order dated.02.03.2016 and the case against A1 was Split-up vide C.C.No.62/2019 vide docket order dated.22.1.2019.

The A3 was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A charge has been framed against her for the offence U/Sec.494, 420 r/w.109 IPC is read over and explained to her in telugu for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined PW 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 marked, on its behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the A3 was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides arguments.

9. Now the points for determination are :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the A3 for the offences punishable Under Section 494, 420 r/w.109 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :-

I have perused the entire evidence on record.

PW.1/Venkata laxmi deposed that at about 6 years ago her marriage was performed with A1 at Anjaneyaswamy temple which was second marriage to her and they started living at Aswapuram along with her children through her first husband and she and A1 lived together for two years and at the time of marriage Rs.80,000/- was presented to A1 towards dowry and later A2 and A3 also came to Aswapuram from Seetharamnagar and all the accused started harassing her by demanding additional dowry and A2 and A3 have taken away A1 to their house. PW.1 further deposed that she came to know that A2 and A3 performed marriage of

A1 without her knowledge. PW.1 further deposed that she filed a petition before JMFC,

Manuguru seeking maintenance and the Hon’ble Court has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards her maintenance, but A1 is not paying the maintenance amount to her. Then she filed a private complainant before this court under Ex.P1.

4

PW.2/Eeta Venkati deposed that at about 10 years on one day PW.1 visited his village and informed him that A1, who is her husband had left her company. PW.2 further deposed that A1 is residing along with one Nagarathnam, who is villager of R.Kothagudem. PW.2 further deposed that PW.1 informed him that during her life time A1 got married another woman and also informed that A2 and A3 also resided along with A1 and PW1 at Aswapuram.

PW.2 further deposed that PW.1 informed him that she sponsored a shop to A1 at

Aswapuram.

PW.3/Koppula Babu @ Venkateswarlu deposed that at about 7 years ago on one dayone lady came to his village and informed that A1 who is her husband had left here company and also informed that A2 and A3 also lived together along with A1 and PW.1. PW.3 further deposed that PW.1 informed him that A1 got married another woman and she requested him to conduct panchayath, but A1 did not attend ebfore them. A1 lived together with another lady in his village and presently A1 is not residing in their village.

PW.4 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

PW.5/B.Satyanarayana, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Dummugudem deposed that on 09.09.2012 at 7-00 p.m he registered a case in Cr.No.51/2012 U/s.494, 495, 420, 109, 114, 509 r/w.34 IPC 156(3) Cr.P.C on the complaint referred by Hon’ble Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru and issued FIR under Ex.P3 in pursuance of Orders of SDPO,

Manuguru under Ex.P4. PW.5 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketchof the scene and prepared Crime Details Form under Ex.P5. PW.5 further deposed that he handedoverthe CD file to LW.8/Vijay Kumar, who arrested A1 and

LW.9/Bhadram arrested A2 and A3. Later he again took-up investigation and after completion of investigation he filed chargesheet against A1 to A3 by deleting the name of A4.

10.To prove the guilt of the accused No.3 for the offence U/s.494 r/w.109 IPC the prosecution must prove that A3 abetted A1 to contract his second marriage with another woman during subsistence of marriage A1 with PW.1 who is legally wedded wife of A1.

Admittedly, no document is produced by prosecution to show that A1 contracted his second marriage with one Doddi Ratnam. The contention of PW1 is that second marriage of A1 was witnessed by PW.2, LW.2/Baburao. PW.2 deposed before this court that at about 10 years ago PW.1 came to him and informed that A1 is her husband and he left her. He also deposed that A1 used to reside with one Nagaratnam in his village. PW.3 also deposed thathe knows the accused and at about 7 years ago on one day one lady came to his village and informed him that A1 is her husband and he left her companpy and A2, A3 also resided along with her 5 later they left her company and she came to know that A1 contracted his second marriage and requested him to conduct a panchayath, but A1 did not attend before him for panchayath.

He also deposed that A1 lived together with another woman in his village and presently he is not residing in his village. PW.4 the mediator for drafting of crime details form turned hostile to the case of prosecution and deposed that no crime details form was prepared nor any panchanama was conducted in his presence, but identified his signature on Crime Details

Form which was marked as Ex.P2.

11.PW.5 the investigating officer supported the case of prosecution and deposed that as per Orders of SDPO, Manuguru in C.No.457/S/OSD/2012 and C.No.569/S DO/D/2012 of

A.S.P. Bhadrachalam and as per Orders of JFCM, Manuguru he registered a case in

Cr.No.51/2012 U/s.494, 495, 420, 109, 114, 509 r/w.34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C. During his investigation he recorded statements of witnesses and visited scene of offence and prepared

Crime Details Form under Ex.P5 and LW.8/Vijay Kumar, arrested A1 and LW.9/Bhadram arrested A2 and A3 and he again resumed investigation and filed chargesheet after completion of investigation. Since major part of investigation was conducted by PW.5 and investigation of LW.8/Vijay Kumar, LW.9/Bhadram is limited to arrest of accused which is a formal in nature. The learned APP rightly given-up evidence of LW.8, LW.9.

Sec.494 IPC reads as follows:

Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine

Sec.109 IPC reads as follows:

Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.—Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. Illustrations

(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.

(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.

(c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Same as for offence abetted—According as offence abetted is cognizable or non- cognizable—According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable—Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable—Non-compoundable.

6

Sec.420 IPC reads as follows:

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine

Sec.50 of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:

Opinion on relationship, when relevant.—When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869) or in prosecutions under section 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant. Comments Contradiction in evidence of relationship of witness of triffle nature, not material in a partition suit; Gowhari Das v. Santilata Singh, AIR 1999 Ori 61.

12.On perusal of evidence let in by prosecution and as per evidence of PW.1 it transpires that PW.1 was married to one Simhadri and he was died at about 12 years ago and then A1 married herand they started living at Aswapuram. She also presented a dowry of Rs.80,000/- and A2, A3 used to reside along with them initially and they shifted their family to Aswapuram and A2, A3 used to take money of computer shop. She also deposed that all the accused harassed for additional dowry and A2, A3 taken A1 to their home and performed second marriage of A1 with another lady. She also deposed that A2 was died and whereabouts of A1 is not known to her. In her cross examination she deposed that she did not mention name of

A3 in her earlier report before Police Aswapuram nor she stated anything against A3 in her 161 Cr.P.C statement before Police Aswapuram.

13.On perusal of record shows that since 1-09-2015 NBW against A1 is pending. On filing of Death Certificate of A2 along with memo on 02-03-2016, case against A2 was abated and on 11-09-2017 sureties of A1 were present and at their request on payment of surety amount, the sureties of A1 were discharged from their suretyship. Considering right of A3 for speedy trial of case as contemplated R.20 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990, the case against A1 was split-up and a new calendar case number was assigned to case against

A1 as CC No.62/2019. PW.1 also deposed that whereabouts of A1 are not known to her.

7

14.On perusal of evidence let in by prosecution, from the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, the A1 lived together with another lady at the residence of A1. No marriage certificate or marriage photograph of A1 was produced by prosecoution to show that A1 contracted his second marriage during subsistence of marriage of A1 with PW.1. As per Sec.50 of Indian Evidence

Act to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.494 IPC, strict proof of marriage is required.

15.In L.Obulamma Vs. L.Venkat Reddy reported in 1979 Law Suit (SC 45) in AIR 1979SC 848 in Para No.6 it was observed that:

(6) In the instant case there was no evidence to show that there was any custom amongst the Reddys which out-weighed the written text of law. The evidence of PW.1 clearly falls short of the standard to prove this fact. Mr.Rao, however, stongly relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in some other case to show that among the Reddy community of Telangana area the two ceremonies mentioned above were not necessary. In the first place the decision referred to above in the case of Re Dolgonti Raghava Reddy (AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 117 ) clearly shows that the Court in that case was concerned only with the Reddy Community of Telangana alone. The trial court has pointed out in its judgment that so far as accused is concerned he belongs to the Reddy community not of Telangana area, but that of Railseema area. In these circumstances the judgment of the High Court cannot be of any avail to the appellant. Moreover, as the existence of the custom was neither mentioned in the complaint nor proved in court which was based on the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case before it. In these circumstances we agree with the High Court that the prosecution had failed to prove that the second marriage contracted by respondent No.1 with respondent No.4 was a valid marriage and, therefore, the High Court was fully justified in acquitting the respondents. The appeal is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.

16.In P.Satyanarayana Vs. P.Mallaiah reported in 1996(6) SCC 122 = 1996LAw suit (SC) 1327 by referring decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande

VS. State of Maharashtra and Kanwal Ram Vs. H.P. Admn and others cases observed in para

No.3 that:

“(e) In our view, the High Court was in error in upsetting the well-considered order of the trial Magistrate requiring due ceremonies of the alleged second marriage being proved so as to satisfy the tests laid down by this court in the afore-referred cases. The plea of guilt afore-referred to could at best be understood to mean that the first appellant had taken a wife, but that admission did not necessarily mean that he had taken the second wife after solemnising a Hindu marriage with her after performing due ceremonies for the marriage. Such plea, which he need not have even entered upon, and which was ignorable by the court, did not absolve the prosecution to otherwise prove its case, that the marriage in question was performed in a regular way so as to visit him with penal consequences. We therefore are of the view that a futile exercise has been enjoined upon the Magistrate by the High Court in ordering a retrial when the evidence, as it was, had been discussed and rejected threadbare. For these reasons, we think that the orders of the High Court would need upsetting, which we hereby do. “ 8

17.As per Ex.P1 complaint marriage of PW.1 with A1 was performed at Sri Bhakta

Anjaneya Swamy temple at Bhadrachalam as per their caste rites which indicates that accused and PW.1 are Hindus. To prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/s.494 IPC the prosecution must prove the necessary ceremonies in the first marriage and second marriage.

Evidence let in by prosecution shows that prosecution has failed to prove necessary ingredients in both marriagesand no marriage photograph is produced nor any priest or any eye witness deposed that A1 married one Doddi Ratnam and it was abetted by A3. In absence of such evidence, it is not safe to convict A3. From the above decisions it is clear that even though the accused admitted that he was living with another woman it does not attract an offence punishable U/s.494 IPC. In this case also even PW.2 deposed that A1 lived together with another lady. It does not attract an offence punishable U/s.494 IPC against A1 and 494 r/w.109 IPC against A3. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for A3 that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.494 r/w.109 IPC has considerable force.

18.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.420 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused cheated the PW.1 and induced PW.1 to give property or to give consent that any person shall retain any property. Admittedly, no property was handedover to

A3 by PW.1. To prove the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.420 IPC, the prosecution must prove that A3 has criminal intention at the time of inception of transaction.

In Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 Crl.L.J.3462 = 2009 Law suit (SC) 752 it was observed in Para No.12 that :

“For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out”

In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of Best Bengal reported in AIR 1956SC 574 it was observed in para No.4 and 5 that :

“where the charge against the accused is under Section 420 in that he induced the complainant to part with his goods, on the understanding that the accused would pay for the same on delivery but did not pay, if the accused had at the time he promised to pay cash aginst delivery an intention to do so, the fact that he did not pay would not convert the transaction into one of cheating. But if on the other hand he had no intention whatsoever to pay but merely said that he would do so in order to induce the complainant to part with the goods then a case of cheating would be established.” 9

Admittedly no evidence is produced by prosecution to show that A3 abetted A1 to contract his second marriage and A3 was present at the marriage of A1 with Doddi Ratnam and no evidence is produced to show that A3 taken money of computer shop for establishing that shop PW1 spent money. Admittedly, PW.1 lodged earlier report before P.S. Aswapuram against A1 only and thereafter the A3 did not live together with PW.1.

19.PW.1 categorically deposed that in her report before Police Aswapuram she did not mention name of A3, nor she stated anything against A3 whilch might have the reason that

A1 was only convicted in a crime registered by P.S.Aswapuram in Crime No.19 of 2008. On perusal of above fact and considering the fact that no evidence is produced by prosecution to show that A3 taken money of computer shop of A1 for its establishment PW.1 spent money.

The remaining allegation against A3 is that she is liable for payment of Rs.80,000/- jointly along with others as per Orders of learned JMFC, Manuguru. The PW.1 can recover said money by filing enforcement petition before court concerned and non-payment of such money does not amount to an offence of cheating.

20.Even though, Police filed chargesheet against accused for the offence U/s.495, 509, 114 r/w.34 IPC, my predecessor-in-office did not take cognizance of the same. During trial also there is no evidence produced by prosecution against the accused for the above offences.

21.On perusal of above evidence it transpires that prosecution has failed to prove that A3 induced PW.1 by cheating her and in pursuance of such deception causes loss to property, body, mind, reputation of PW.1. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the contention of learned counsel for A3 that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.420 IPC has considerable force.

22.In view of the above discussion and in the light of principles of ratio laid down in the above decision, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A3 for the offence u/s.494, 420 r/w.109 IPC. The point is answered accordingly.

10

23. In the result, A3 is found not guilty of the offence U/s.494, 420 r/w.109 IPC.

She is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail Bonds of the accused shall be in force for 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to Order.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26th day of June, 2020.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution P.W.1. Vasampally Venkata Laxmi P.W.2. E. Venkati P.W.3. Koppula Babu @ Venkateswarlu P.W.4. Koppula Ganapathi P.W.5. B.Satayanarayana

For defence -Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. Report Ex.P.2. Signature of PW.4 on the Crime Details Form Ex.P.3. First Information Report Ex.P4. Copy of Order of S.D.P.O., Manuguru. Ex.P.5. Crime Details Form.

For defence -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Corrections carried out by me:

C.C.No.471 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

BHADRACHALAM

Tuesday, this the 16th day of August, 2022.

Present: Sri C.Suresh,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.471 of 2018

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhadrachalam Town.

...Complainant

And

Gondi Venkata Ramana, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 26 years, R/o.Venkateswara Colony, Bhadrachalam, N/o.Pochavaram colony, Kunavaram Mandal.

...Accused

* * *

This case is coming before me on 26-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri R.Rammohan Rao, learned Counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a case arising out of the charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Bhadrachalam Town P.S in Crime No.75/2010 for the offences punishable

Under Section 294(b), 506 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the charge-sheet are that on 02.06.2010 at 15.00 hours the complainant/Gondhi Sumithra, W/o.Venkata

Ramana came to PS Bhadrachalam Town and lodged a report stating that accused/Gondi Venkata Ramana loved and married her on 25.10.2007 and started harassing and humiliating her physically and mentally after the marriage on that she had filed a criminal case against the accused U/s.498-A IPC and it is pending in the court, the accused used to meet her in thebazaar and compelling to withdraw the case against him and threatened her that he would cut off her 1 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018 hands and legs if he convicted in the court or if not withdraw the case. She was harassed by her husband and she made complaint 3 and 4 times to the Police.

She has recorded her husband voice through cell phone at CPI Office on 18.05.2010 and transmitted the conversation in the CD and submitted to the

Police at the time of reporting and on the same day accused abused her in vulgar language and puller her mobile phone and hit to the ground by stating that he can marry another girl and maintain her without knowledge of complainant and Police. Accused used to abuse the complainant over phone with other girls. The sister of accused Subhashini who met on the road and threatened that she would do anything if her brother/accused convicted in the court and on 22.05.2010 the accused, his sister Subhashini and his elder brother

Rama krishna met her on the road, Rama Krishna insulted and offered money to withdraw the case against his brother Venkata Ramana and threatened that he would go to the High Court and Supreme Court for this case and in the month ofMarch, the accused took her to Karakatta, Bhadrachalam and abused her in filthy language and forcibly took her cell phone and beat with hands. On the other day her brother-in-law Rama Krishna met her in the Court and told her that his brother Venkata Ramana was with the High Court Lawyer and he would prove the innocence of him and argued with her. When her husband took her to

Karakatta, Shyamala, friend of the complanlant was present with her and she recorded the voice of her husband.

On receipt of report from LW.1, LW.6/SI of Police registered a case in Crime

No.75/2010 U/s.294(b), 506 IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared CDF in the presence of mediators, on 21.06.2010 LW.7 arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand, subsequently he completed the further investigation and filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence U/s.294(b), 506 IPC.

2 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018

3. This case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec. 294(b), 506 IPC against the accused and process was issued.

4. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C he denied the accusation. Accusation U/s. 294(b), 506 IPC was made, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined Pws.1 to PW-6 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 and M.O.1 on its behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported for defence evidence. In defence, the accused himself examined as

DW.1 and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides arguments.

8.Now the point for determination is :

whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused for the offence U/Sec.294(b), 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

9.POINT :

The main allegation of the prosecution is that on 18.05.2010 when the accused was abusing and threateneing the LW.1 over cell phone she went to

CPI Office, Bhadrachalam and requested LW.2 to record the voice of the accused as her recording voice of her cell was out oforder, on that LW.2 has recorded the voice of accused in his cell, LW.1 re-write the voice into the CD and handedover the same to the Police, further the accused took the LW.1 towards Karakatta and abused and dragged her cell phone and threatened with 3 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018 dire consequences, as such the accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable Under Section 294(b), 506 IPC.

10. In order to prove the offence against the accused the prosecution examined the PWs 1 to 6 out of LWs 1 to 7 shown in the charge sheet and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 and M.O.1.

11. PW-1 deposed that she had filed 498-A case against accused in the year 2007 and when the case was pending before this court accused frequently came to her and demanded her to withdraw the case and also accused threatened her with dire consequences by stating that if the court convicted the accused, he would cut her hands and legs. PW1 further deposed that in the month of March, 2010 herself and her friends went to market then accused came to her and proposed compromise and took her to Karakatta. PW1 further deposed that accused also beat her and picked up her phone forcibly from her and behaved indecently. PW1 further deposed that on 18.05.2010 accused have telephoned her and scolded her with filthy language and demanded her to meet him. Then she approached CPI party office as her mobile has no facility to record the voice. Later she recorded threatenings of accused in the mobile of Lw2/Narendra by switching on her speaker phone. PW1 further deposed that S.Sathish and Lws3/Punnavi Shyamala were also present at that time. She handedover the CD file to police. Then she gave report under Ex.P1 to the police. PW1 further deposed that on questioning accused stated that he would marry one Ramadevi. During the cross examination she admitted that the Police registered case on 02.06.2010. She further admitted that the case filed against the accused U/s.498-A IPC was converted as 493 IPC and the accused was convicted by this court and in Appellate court he was acquitted.

She further admitted that Kunavaram Police has registered a case against her and the said case is pending on the file of Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Rampachaodavaram.

PW-2 deposed that he had been working as Social worker in A.I.S.F. on 18.05.2010 he was present in the CPI Office, at that Pw1 and Lw3/Shyamala came to CPI Office and Lw2/Narendra was also present. PW2 deposed before PW1 informed them that her husband threatened her through phone by demanding to withdraw the cases filed against him. By that time PW1 received a phone call from her husband and requested them to record the phone call. PW1 switch on the speaker phone of the cell phone and recorded the said phone call in the cell phone of Lw2/Narendra. Pw2 further deposed that they converted the voice 4 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018 recording as CD and handedover the same to PW1. PW2 further deposed that he heard the phone call. accused has threatened the Pw1 with a demand to withdraw the cases. PW1 gave report to police with their assistance. During the cross examination PW.2 admitted that he has not seen the accused and further admitted that he has not stated to the Police that they converted the voice record into CD.

PW-3 deposed that in 2010 PW1 came to CPI Party office, by that time he was present in the office and Pw1 asked his cell phone as her cell phone has no facility to record the voice. PW1 informed that her husband scolded her through phone as such she intend to record the voice call of her husband and he accepted for the same. At that time PW1 received phone call from her husband and she switch on the speaker phone and he recorded the said call in his phone and converted the said record in to CD and handedover the CD to Pw1. During cross examination PW.3 admitted that he has no prior acquaintance with the PW.1 prior to the incident and he handedover the cell to PW.1 at her request. PW.3 further admitted that he was not present at the time of recording the voice and he has not handedover the cell phone to Police.

PW-4 deposed that PW1 who is her friend got married the accused which is love marriage. PW4 further deposed that accused harassed PW1 by demanding

additional dowry, then Pw1 gave a report to police. PW4 further deposed that on

18.05.2010 accused abused Pw1 and also her. PW1 came to CPI office and got recorded the same and she waited out side at the time of recording the voice.

PW4 further deposed that PW1 recorded the voice in the cell phone of PW3 and later they converted the same into cassette. Then Pw1 gave report to police and handedover the cassette to the police. During the cross examination she admitted that she cannot read the statement.

PW-5 deposed that on 02.06.2010 at 3-00 p.m on receipt of written report

Ex.P1 from PW1, she registered the same as a case in Crime No.75/2009 for the offence punishable U/Sec.294(b), 506 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P2 and she recorded the statement of PW1. PW1 also handedover CD to her under M.O.1.

PW5 further deposed that she examined and recorded the statements of Pw3,

Pw4 and later she handedover the CD file to Lw7/R.Sathish Kumar for further investigation in this case. During the cross examination she admitted that the defacto complainant/PW.1 gave report with delay and she further admitted that

PW.1 brought PW.3 and 4 to the Police Station. She further admitted that she does not know the contents of CD.

5 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018

PW-6 deposed that on 05.06.2010 on receipt of CD file from PW5, he verified the same on correct lines and on 21.06.2010 he arrested accused and sent him to court for judicial custody. Pw6 further deposed that on 26.06.2010 he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and LW5/Ch.Krishnaiah and after completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet against the accused by deleting the names of A2 and A3 as no offence was established against the A2 and A3.

During the cross examination PW.6 admitted that he has not obtained any call data of the accused and he has not mentioned the phone numbers in the chargesheet and further admitted that he has not ascertained the phone numbers of the accused and the defacto complainant. He admitted that he played the CD and he has not obtained any voice samples of accused for comparison. He further admitted that he has not seized any cell phones in this case and basing on the statement of complainant they came to conclusion that the voice belongs to the accused.

10.On perusal of the entire evidence of prosecution, it transpires that it is the allegation against accused that the accused threatened the PW.1 and abused her in filthy language. To prove its case prosecution has examined total 6 witnesses as

Pws.1 to 6 out of 7 witnesses cited by prosecution. Learned A.P.P. has given-up evidence of LW.5/Krishnaiah, who is said to have heard voice of accused over cell phone as Pws.2 and 4 supported the case of PW.1.

Sec.506 IPC reads as follows:

Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.

11. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.506 IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused criminally initmidated the victim or threat be to cause death or grievous hurts to PW.1.

Sec.294(b) IPC reads as follows:

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.] 6 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018

12.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.294(b) IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused signs, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place with PW.1.

13.It is is case of PW.1 that the accused over cell phone in presence of PW.2 and 4 on 18.05.2010. PW.2 who said to have heard the voice of accused over cell phone deposed that “I have not seen the accused” and he cannot say the person who called the PW.1 over cell phone. PW.3 who said to have recorded the voice of acused from his mobile phone and converted the same into CD deposed in his cross -examination that he has no prior acquaintance with PW.1 prior to the incident and he handed over the cell to PW.1 at her request and he also deposed that he does not know the contents of said voice cell and he was not handedover the cell phone to Police.

14. PW.4 the friend of PW.1 supported the case of prosecution and deposed that on 18.05.2010 the accused abused PW.1 and also husband of PW.1 came to

CPI Office and got recorded the same in the cell phone of PW.3 and they converted the same into cassette. In her cross examination she admitted thatshe did not state before Police that the accused abused her. Admittedly, she is friend of

PW.1 and she did not state before Police the date of Offence.

15.PW.5 the first investigating officer who registered the case deposed that on 02.06.2010 at 3-00 p.m PW.1 gave a report on basis on which she registered a case in Crime No.75/2009 U/s.294(b), 506 IPC and PW.1 handedover M.O.1 CD to her which is marked subject to objection. In the cross examination she deposed that PW.1 lodged report with delay and PW.1 brought PW.3 and PW.4 to police station anod she does not know the contents of CD.

16.PW.6 another investigating officer who filed chargesheet deposed that on 05.06.2010 he verified the investigation conducted by PW.5 found to be on correct lines and on 21.06.2010 he arrested the acused and remanded him to judicial custody. He admitted that no crime details form is drawn and he has not obtained 7 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018 any call date of acused and he has not mentioned the phone number in chargesheet and he has no ascertained phone number of accused and PW.1 as he knows the contents of CD and he admitted that he has not seized any cell phone.

17. On perusal of entire evidence let in by prosecution it transpires that no call data is collected to ascertain whether the accused called PW.1 on the date of alleged offence as no cell phone is seized to show that such cell phone is used for commission of offence as no voice sample is collected to ascertain that the voice is belongs to accused and no expert opinion is obtained to show that the accused only threatened and abused the PW.1 and admittedly PW.2 deposed that he cannot say the person who called PW.1 PW.3 from whose phone voice is allegedly recorded deposed that he does not know the contents of said voice call and he was not present at the time of recording voice. PW.4 another witness deposed that she waited outside at the time of recording voice.

65 B of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:

[65B. Admissibility of electronic records.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—

(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;

(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;

(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and

(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.

8 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018 (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether—

(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or

(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or

(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—

(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;

(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,—

(a) infomation shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;

(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;

(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.]

In Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K.Basheer and others in Civil Appeal No.4226 of 2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Courtof India it was held that :

45A Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence: When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in Section 79A of the

Information Technology Act, 2000(21 of 2000) is a relevant fact. For the purposes of this section an Examiner of Electronic Evidnece shall be an expert. Section 59 under PartII of the Evidence Act dealing with proof, reads as follows:

9 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018

59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence. Section 65A reads as follows:

65A Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record. The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B

Section 65 B reads as follows:

65B Admissibility of electronic records:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copies in optical or magnetic media produced bya computer ( hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioend int his section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. The same is approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in Arjun

Panditrav Khotkar Vs. Kallash Kushan Rao.

In this case no original cell phone from which the voice recorded is not seized and no Certificate is produced as contemplated U/s.65 B ofIndian Evidence

Act.

18.Accused is examined as DW.1 and he produced Ex.D1 to D4 to show that the PW.1 filed many false cases against him as she was already married to another person which clearly shows that this false case is foisted against him to harass him only

19.In view of above discussion and in the light principles of ratio laid down in above decision, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/s.294(b), 506 IPC. Hence, the accused isentitled for acquittal.

10 Of 11

C.C.No.471 of 2018

20. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s.294(b), 506 IPC. He is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for 6 months as contemplated U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 CD shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of August, 2022.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For prosecution PW-1.Gondi Sumithra PW-2.S.Sathish, PW-3.Vemuri Narendra PW-4.P.Shyamala PW-5.Ch.Seetharathnam, PW-6.R.Sathish Kumar

For defence: DW.1. Gondi Venkataramana

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. Report lodged by PW.1 Ex.P2. First Information Report

For Defence : Ex.D1. Copy of Order in Crl.R.P.No.88/2015 of Hon’ble V Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Kothagudem. Ex.D2. Copy of Crl.A.No.50/2012 of Hon’ble I Addl.Sessions Judge, Khammam. Ex.D3. Photographs (5 )of PW.1 alongwith Draksha Kalyan Sunil Ex.D3 Copyb of Dance Academy-8 pages.

Material Objects Marked M.O.1. C.D.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

11 Of 11

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Thursday, this the 25th day of June, 2020.

Present: Sri C. Suresh,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.578 of 2012

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Burgampahad.

...Complainant

and

1. Karri Rama Koteswar Rao, S/o.Seetharamulu, 37 years, Contractor (A1).

2. Karri Nageswar Rao, S/o.Seetharamulu, 35 years, Business (A2).

3. Boddada Mohana Murali Krishna @ Appala Naidu, S/o.BPVS Naidu, 28 years, R/o.ITC Employee (A3).

4. Boddada Krishna Kumari, W/o.BPVS Naidu, 48 years, Anganvadi Helper (A4). All R/o.Sreerampuram colony, Sarapaka village, Burgampahad Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 13-03-2020 for hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case arising out of charge-sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Burgampahad, against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.128/2012 for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case according to the charge-sheet are that the on 27- 07-2012 complainant/Gandla Narsaiah/LW-1 lodged report stating that he got agricultural fields at about 17.23 gts in Sy.No.249/1 & 250 at the outskirts of BPL

Sarapaka village of Burgampahad Mandal and raised cotton crop and on 27-07-2012 he along with Lws.2 to 5 went to their said land to weed from the fields wherein the accused A1 to A4 came there and wrongfully restrained them by abusing in filthy 2 language and threatened with dire consequences if they entered into the cotton field they would kill them.

On 27-07-2012 at 1015 hours on receipt of report from LW.1, the LW-8/S.I.

of police, Burgampahad registered a case in Crime No.128/2012 U/s.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC. During the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. LW.8 made sincere efforts to apprehend A1 to A4 since accused hails from various villages in the state and their whereabouts are not ascertain, hence, after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against A1 to A4 by showing them as absconding.

4.This case was taken on file for the offences U/sec.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC against A1 to A4 and the process was issued.

5.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required

U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The A1 to A4 were examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence U/Sec.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC is read over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined PW 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P-10 are marked, on its behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the A1 to A4 were examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported that they have defence evidence. DW.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked on behalf of accused.

8.Heard both sides arguments.

3

9. Now the points for determination are :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the offences punishable Under Section 341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :-

I have perused the entire evidence on record.

PW.1/Gandla Narsaiah deposed that on 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with Lws.2 to 4 were removing the waste plants in their fields in Sy.No.249/1, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them and raised alarm by stating that the land belongs to accused and threatened them with consequences, then he lodged report under Ex.P.1 to the Police. P.W.1 further deposed he filed the copies of Fasli year 1421 which were registered in the names of his family members in Sy.No.249/1 under Ex.P4 to P10.

PW.2 deposed that on 27.07.2012 he along with PW.1 and Lws.3 to 5 were removing the waste plants in their fields situated in Sy.No.249/1 and 250, then A1 to

A4 came there and obstructed them by stating that the said land belongs to accused and abused them in filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences.

PW-3/G.Srinivasa Rao deposed that on 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with PW.1, 2, Lws.4 & 5 were removing the waste plants in their fields in

Sy.No.249/1 and 250, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them by stating that the land belongs to them and threatened them with consequences.

PW-4/G.Leela Mohan Rao deposed that 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with Pws.1 to 3 and LW5 were removing the waste plants in their fields in 4

Sy.No.249/1, 250, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them by stating that the land belongs to them and threatened them with consequences.

PW-5/G.Venkatappaiah deposed that 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with Pws.1 to 4 were removing the waste plants in their fields in Sy.No.249/1, 250, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them by stating that the land belongs to them and threatened them with consequences.

PW-6/I.Ramakrishna deposed that 27-07-2012 at about 11-30 a.m Police called him along with LW7 to the scene of offence, ie., fields of PW1 situated at Srirampuram colony, they prepared Crime Details form with regard to a case of threatening, abusing and wrongful restraint under Ex.P2.

PW-7/K.Vinod, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Burgampahad P.S. deposed that on 27-07-2012 on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW.1, he registered a case in

Crime No.128/2012 U/s.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P3, later he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 at Police station, later, he visited the scene of offence at the fields of PW.1 and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P2. PW.7 further deposed that he examfined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW6 at the scene of offence and after completion of investigation chargesheet was laid against accused by showing them as absconding.

DW.1/K.Ramakoteswara Rao deposed that he is owner of land in Sy.Nos.249/1, 250 to an extent of Ac.11.36 gts and in 2001 he purchased the said land from

Patasani Ramachandra Rao, GPA Holder of Koleti Ramarao and since then he is in possession of said land and raise cotton crop, eucalyptus trees and some times they raise vegetable crops like tomato etc and on 27.7.2012 a report was lodged by one

Gondla Narsaiah alleging that he along with his wife and others obstructed 5

G.Gandhara rao and others while they were entering into their lands in Sy.No.249/1, 250 and they also threatened the above said persons. DW.1 further deposed that he joined in Nikitha Hospital, Bhadrachalam on 26.7.2012 and got treated there as in- patient till 28.7.2012 as he underwent surgery for left knee due to the injury sustained in the accident near Sarapaka. Exs.D1 to D3 are medical certificates issued by concerned hospital. DW.1 further deposed that he is residing in the said land by constructing a house bearing No.5-309/11.

DW.2/Guguloth Veeraiah deposed that he know DW.1 and for the past 20 years the accused were in possession of land in Sy.No.250 at Sreerampuram and land consisting of 11 acres. DW.2 further deposed that the accused party raised cotton crop, jamail at the lands and Pws.1 to 5 are not cultivating the land at the scene of offence.

DW.3/Shiva Koti Satyanarayana deposed that he know DW.1 and for the past 20 years the accused were in possession of land in Sy.No.250 at Sreerampuram and land consisting of 11 acres. DW.3 further deposed that the accused party raised cotton crop, jamail, tomato at the lands and Pws.1 to 5 are not cultivating the land at the scene of offence

The case of prosecution is that PW.1 and their family is owners of land to the extent of Ac.17.23 gts in Sy.No.249/1, 250 adjacent to BPL Company, Sarapaka and they raised cotton crop in the said land and on 27.07.2012 at 06.30 a.m. when Pws.1 to 5 were proceding to said land for weeding out waste from the fields the accused wrongfully restrained them and threatened Pws.1 to 5 with dire consequences.

Sec.341 IPC reads as follows: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

6

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.]

Sec.506 IPC reads as follows:

“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

10.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined total 7 witnesses as Pws.1 to 7 out of 8 witnesses cited in the chargesheet as witnesses.

Learned A.P.P. has rightly given-up the evidence of LW.6/Chandrasekhar who is mediator for drafting of Crime Details form as PW.6 another mediator supported the case of prosecution.

11.PW.1 is the informant who supported the case of prosecution. Pws.2 to 5 who are also victim visited the scene of offence along with PW.1 supported the case of prosecution. PW.6 who is mediator drafting of Crime Details form also supported the case of prosecution. PW.7 the investigating officer also supported the case of prosecution.

12.Learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that evidence of Pws.1 to 7 is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, she prays this court to punish the accused according to law.

13.On the other hand learned counsel for accused submits that the accused did not commit any offence and also submits that A1 is a physically challenged person and he is owner of land atthe scene of offence and to grab said land this false case is foisted against accused. There are many cases registered against accused on the false reports ofcomplainant party and the accused party also lodged reports against 7 complainant party. He also submits from 26.07.2012 to 28.07.2012 A1 underwent forknee surgery at Nikitha Hospital and A1 produoced Ex.D1 to D3 to show that he got treated at Nikitha Hospital as in-patient on the date of alleged offence and he is orthopaetically handicapped and he is a disabled person. Learned counsel for accused also submits that A1 along with his family is residing at scene of offence by constructing a house bearing No.5-309/11 which shows that accused family is owner of land at scene of offence and DW.2 and DW.3 also supported their version. Hence, he prays to acquit the accused.

14.Ex.P4 to P9 shows that one Gundla Ratna Rao, Gandla Purna chandra rao who is father of PW.2, Gandla Narsaiah, PW.1 and the father of PW.3 are owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.249/1/a, aa, E, 250/1, 250/2, 250/3 of Sarapaka village ie., at scene of offence for the Fasli year 1421, ie., 2011 Gregorian calendar year from 2011 July, to 2012 June. Alleged incident was occurred on 27.07.2012 which prima facie shows that as per Ex.P4 to P.10 Pws.1 to 3 and their family is owners and possesors of land at scene of offence. Even though, DW.1 to 3 deposed that the family of accused isin possession of land at scene of offence no document is produced by accused to that effect. Ex.P.10 shows that Spl.Asst.Agent Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam held in I.A.No.90/2011 in O.S.No.116/2011,

dt.04-06-2012 that the father of PW.2, PW.1, one Gandla Ratnakar are in possession of land at scene of offence ie., land in Sy.No.249/1, 250 at Sarapaka Village,

Burgampahad Mandal.

15.The accused No.1/DW.1 deposed in his cross-examination that he did not produce any document to show that the land at scene of offence belongs to him and he raised cotton, eucalyptus plants and ITC Company supplied any plants to him. He also admitted that he did not produce any FIR copy to show that he sustained injury in any accident nor filed any document to show that he filed petition before Hon’ble Court at Khammam for compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident. Even 8 though, he produced Ex.D1 certificate to show that he got treated at Nikitha hospital from 26.07.2012 to 28.07.2012 the Doctor who treated A1 is not examined. It is settled law that mere marking of document does not amount to proof of its contents unless it is corroborated with other facts when it is disputed by other party. Ex.D1 shows that it was issued on 19.09.2019 ie., after 7 years of treatment allegedly taken by A1.

DW.1/A.1 admitted in his cross examination that Ex.D2 shows that he is suffering with 55% disability. Ex.D3 shows that he has 85% disability. In these circumstances, the contention of learned A.P.P. that there is discrepancy with regard to percentage of disability between in Ex.D2 and D3 and the doctor who treated. A1 is not examined and Ex.D1 was issued after 7 years of examination of A1 by doctorand documents regarding to accident are not produced, hence the A1 is not entitled for benefit of “

Alibi “ as contended by learned A.P.P. has considerable force.

16.Admittedly, there are civil disputes between complainant party and accused party with regard to ownership of land at scene of offence and many cases are filed by one party against other party and the same is admitted by PW.7/ the investigating officer. PW.2 admitted that A1 is a physically challenged person and A4 is a woman and A3 is an employee of BPL Company and Pws.1 to 4 are physically fit persons. IN this casePWs.1 to 5 are related to each other. No independent witness is examined.

Alleged offence against accused is registered for wrongful restraint, threatening, abusing Pws.1 to 5 for that no physical fitness is necessary. Admittedly, Pws.1 to 5 are not local people and they are permanent residents of Guntur whereas accusedare native ofscene of offence. In these circumstances the contention of learned counsel

for accused that no inpdependent witness supported the case of prosecution is not

tenable as nobodyo wants to interfere with land disputes between 2 parties and admittedly Pws.1 to 5 are not permanent residents of locality whereas accused are local people at scene of offence.

9

17.On perusal of evidence let in by prosecution Pws.1 to 5 who are victims supported the case of prosecution and PWs.6 mediator for drafting of crime details form PW.7/investigating officer supported the case of prosecution. The real dispute between the parties is with regard to ownership of lanld at scene of offence and PW.1 produced Exs.P4 to P.10 to show that they are owners of land at scene of offence.

Dws.1 to 3 even though deposed that A1 and his family is in possession of land at scene of offence for the past 20 years. DW.2, DW.3 deposed in their cross examination that they do not know who is real owner of land at scene of offence.

Admittedly the real dispute between parites is with regard to oownership of land at scene of offence. It is true the contention of learnedcouonsel for accused is that there is every cahnce to Pws.1 to 5 to file false cases against accused to grab land of accused. But record shows that alleged offence was occurred on 27-07-2012 at 06.30 a.m and on the same day at 10.15 a.m Ex.P1 report was lodged which shows that the

PW.1 lodged report without delay and prompt report by PW.1 is one of the circumstances supporting the case of prosecution. The prosecution has proved the intention of accused to commit the offence keeping in the mind the civil dispute between both parties. On perusal of evidence it clearly established by prosecution that the accused wrongfully restrained Pws.1 to 5 and threatened them with dire consequences and abused them. The prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.294(b), 341, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. The point is answered accordingly.

18.On questioning quantum of sentence the accused No.1, 3, 4 pleaded mercy by stating that A1 is a physically challenged person and A4 is woman and A3 is only bread winner of his family and as A2 failed to attend before this court even though conditional order is passed he lost of opportunity of being heard on Quantum of sentence.

19.Considering the nature and gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that the accused are not entitled foro benefit under P.O.Act or under Sec.360 Cr.P.C. But, 10 considering the fact that the real dispute between parties is with regard to ownership of land at scene of offence and admittedly there are many cases filed between both parties with regard to ownership of property, I am of the opinion that imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice.

20. In the result, A1 to A4 are found guilty of the offence U/s.294(b), 341, 506 IPC. They are convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C. A fine of Rs.500/- ( Rupees five hundred) is imposed on A1 to A4 each for the offence U/s.294(b)IPC. In default, they shall suffer S.I. for 1 month. They are also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/s.506 IPC. In default, they shall suffer S.I. for 1 month. They are further directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- ( Rupees five hundred) each forthe offence U/s.341

IPC. In default, they shall suffer S.I. for 1 month. There is no property as to Order. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C..

Typed to my dictation by the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of June, 2020.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution P.W.1. Gandla Narsaiah P.W.2. K.Srirammurthy P.W.3. Y.Sambasiva Rao P.W.4. B.Rambabu P.W.5. V.Trimurthi P.W.6. P.Laxma Reddy P.W.7. G.Prakash

For defence DW.1. Karri Ramakoteswara Rao DW.2. Guguloth Veeraiah DW.3. Shiva Koti Satyanarayana 11

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. report Ex.P.2. Crime Details Form Ex.P.3. First Information Report Ex.P4. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/A registered in the name of Gandla Ramarao Ex.P5. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/AA registered in the name of Gandla Purna Chandra Rao Ex.P6. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/E registered in the name of Gandla Narsailah Ex.P7. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.250/1 registered in the name of Gandla Ratnarao Ex.P8. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.250/2 registered in the name of Gandla Purnachandar Rao Ex.P9. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/A registered in the name of Gandla Narsaiah Ex.P10.Copy of Order in I.A.No.90/2011 in O.S.No.116/2011 on the file of Spl.Asst.Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam.

For defence Ex.D1. Medical Certificate issued by Nikhitha Hospital, Bhadrachalam, dt.19.09.2019. Ex.D2. Copy of certificate issued by Chairman, District Medical Board, dt.03.10.2013 Ex.D3. Copy of Certificate issued by Government of Telangana, dt.12.03.2015.

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam . Corrections carried out by me:

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Thursday, this the 25th day of June, 2020.

Present: Sri C. Suresh,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.578 of 2012

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Burgampahad.

...Complainant

and

1. Karri Rama Koteswar Rao, S/o.Seetharamulu, 37 years, Contractor (A1).

2. Karri Nageswar Rao, S/o.Seetharamulu, 35 years, Business (A2).

3. Boddada Mohana Murali Krishna @ Appala Naidu, S/o.BPVS Naidu, 28 years, R/o.ITC Employee (A3).

4. Boddada Krishna Kumari, W/o.BPVS Naidu, 48 years, Anganvadi Helper (A4). All R/o.Sreerampuram colony, Sarapaka village, Burgampahad Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 13-03-2020 for hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case arising out of charge-sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Burgampahad, against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.128/2012 for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case according to the charge-sheet are that the on 27- 07-2012 complainant/Gandla Narsaiah/LW-1 lodged report stating that he got agricultural fields at about 17.23 gts in Sy.No.249/1 & 250 at the outskirts of BPL

Sarapaka village of Burgampahad Mandal and raised cotton crop and on 27-07-2012 he along with Lws.2 to 5 went to their said land to weed from the fields wherein the accused A1 to A4 came there and wrongfully restrained them by abusing in filthy 2 language and threatened with dire consequences if they entered into the cotton field they would kill them.

On 27-07-2012 at 1015 hours on receipt of report from LW.1, the LW-8/S.I.

of police, Burgampahad registered a case in Crime No.128/2012 U/s.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC. During the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. LW.8 made sincere efforts to apprehend A1 to A4 since accused hails from various villages in the state and their whereabouts are not ascertain, hence, after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against A1 to A4 by showing them as absconding.

4.This case was taken on file for the offences U/sec.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC against A1 to A4 and the process was issued.

5.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required

U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The A1 to A4 were examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence U/Sec.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC is read over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined PW 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P-10 are marked, on its behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the A1 to A4 were examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported that they have defence evidence. DW.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked on behalf of accused.

8.Heard both sides arguments.

3

9. Now the points for determination are :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the offences punishable Under Section 341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :-

I have perused the entire evidence on record.

PW.1/Gandla Narsaiah deposed that on 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with Lws.2 to 4 were removing the waste plants in their fields in Sy.No.249/1, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them and raised alarm by stating that the land belongs to accused and threatened them with consequences, then he lodged report under Ex.P.1 to the Police. P.W.1 further deposed he filed the copies of Fasli year 1421 which were registered in the names of his family members in Sy.No.249/1 under Ex.P4 to P10.

PW.2 deposed that on 27.07.2012 he along with PW.1 and Lws.3 to 5 were removing the waste plants in their fields situated in Sy.No.249/1 and 250, then A1 to

A4 came there and obstructed them by stating that the said land belongs to accused and abused them in filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences.

PW-3/G.Srinivasa Rao deposed that on 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with PW.1, 2, Lws.4 & 5 were removing the waste plants in their fields in

Sy.No.249/1 and 250, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them by stating that the land belongs to them and threatened them with consequences.

PW-4/G.Leela Mohan Rao deposed that 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with Pws.1 to 3 and LW5 were removing the waste plants in their fields in 4

Sy.No.249/1, 250, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them by stating that the land belongs to them and threatened them with consequences.

PW-5/G.Venkatappaiah deposed that 27-07-2012 at about 06-30 a.m he along with Pws.1 to 4 were removing the waste plants in their fields in Sy.No.249/1, 250, then A1 to A4 obstructed them and abused them by stating that the land belongs to them and threatened them with consequences.

PW-6/I.Ramakrishna deposed that 27-07-2012 at about 11-30 a.m Police called him along with LW7 to the scene of offence, ie., fields of PW1 situated at Srirampuram colony, they prepared Crime Details form with regard to a case of threatening, abusing and wrongful restraint under Ex.P2.

PW-7/K.Vinod, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Burgampahad P.S. deposed that on 27-07-2012 on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW.1, he registered a case in

Crime No.128/2012 U/s.341, 294(b), 506 r/w.34 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P3, later he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 at Police station, later, he visited the scene of offence at the fields of PW.1 and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P2. PW.7 further deposed that he examfined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW6 at the scene of offence and after completion of investigation chargesheet was laid against accused by showing them as absconding.

DW.1/K.Ramakoteswara Rao deposed that he is owner of land in Sy.Nos.249/1, 250 to an extent of Ac.11.36 gts and in 2001 he purchased the said land from

Patasani Ramachandra Rao, GPA Holder of Koleti Ramarao and since then he is in possession of said land and raise cotton crop, eucalyptus trees and some times they raise vegetable crops like tomato etc and on 27.7.2012 a report was lodged by one

Gondla Narsaiah alleging that he along with his wife and others obstructed 5

G.Gandhara rao and others while they were entering into their lands in Sy.No.249/1, 250 and they also threatened the above said persons. DW.1 further deposed that he joined in Nikitha Hospital, Bhadrachalam on 26.7.2012 and got treated there as in- patient till 28.7.2012 as he underwent surgery for left knee due to the injury sustained in the accident near Sarapaka. Exs.D1 to D3 are medical certificates issued by concerned hospital. DW.1 further deposed that he is residing in the said land by constructing a house bearing No.5-309/11.

DW.2/Guguloth Veeraiah deposed that he know DW.1 and for the past 20 years the accused were in possession of land in Sy.No.250 at Sreerampuram and land consisting of 11 acres. DW.2 further deposed that the accused party raised cotton crop, jamail at the lands and Pws.1 to 5 are not cultivating the land at the scene of offence.

DW.3/Shiva Koti Satyanarayana deposed that he know DW.1 and for the past 20 years the accused were in possession of land in Sy.No.250 at Sreerampuram and land consisting of 11 acres. DW.3 further deposed that the accused party raised cotton crop, jamail, tomato at the lands and Pws.1 to 5 are not cultivating the land at the scene of offence

The case of prosecution is that PW.1 and their family is owners of land to the extent of Ac.17.23 gts in Sy.No.249/1, 250 adjacent to BPL Company, Sarapaka and they raised cotton crop in the said land and on 27.07.2012 at 06.30 a.m. when Pws.1 to 5 were proceding to said land for weeding out waste from the fields the accused wrongfully restrained them and threatened Pws.1 to 5 with dire consequences.

Sec.341 IPC reads as follows: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

6

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.]

Sec.506 IPC reads as follows:

“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

10.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined total 7 witnesses as Pws.1 to 7 out of 8 witnesses cited in the chargesheet as witnesses.

Learned A.P.P. has rightly given-up the evidence of LW.6/Chandrasekhar who is mediator for drafting of Crime Details form as PW.6 another mediator supported the case of prosecution.

11.PW.1 is the informant who supported the case of prosecution. Pws.2 to 5 who are also victim visited the scene of offence along with PW.1 supported the case of prosecution. PW.6 who is mediator drafting of Crime Details form also supported the case of prosecution. PW.7 the investigating officer also supported the case of prosecution.

12.Learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that evidence of Pws.1 to 7 is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, she prays this court to punish the accused according to law.

13.On the other hand learned counsel for accused submits that the accused did not commit any offence and also submits that A1 is a physically challenged person and he is owner of land atthe scene of offence and to grab said land this false case is foisted against accused. There are many cases registered against accused on the false reports ofcomplainant party and the accused party also lodged reports against 7 complainant party. He also submits from 26.07.2012 to 28.07.2012 A1 underwent forknee surgery at Nikitha Hospital and A1 produoced Ex.D1 to D3 to show that he got treated at Nikitha Hospital as in-patient on the date of alleged offence and he is orthopaetically handicapped and he is a disabled person. Learned counsel for accused also submits that A1 along with his family is residing at scene of offence by constructing a house bearing No.5-309/11 which shows that accused family is owner of land at scene of offence and DW.2 and DW.3 also supported their version. Hence, he prays to acquit the accused.

14.Ex.P4 to P9 shows that one Gundla Ratna Rao, Gandla Purna chandra rao who is father of PW.2, Gandla Narsaiah, PW.1 and the father of PW.3 are owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.249/1/a, aa, E, 250/1, 250/2, 250/3 of Sarapaka village ie., at scene of offence for the Fasli year 1421, ie., 2011 Gregorian calendar year from 2011 July, to 2012 June. Alleged incident was occurred on 27.07.2012 which prima facie shows that as per Ex.P4 to P.10 Pws.1 to 3 and their family is owners and possesors of land at scene of offence. Even though, DW.1 to 3 deposed that the family of accused isin possession of land at scene of offence no document is produced by accused to that effect. Ex.P.10 shows that Spl.Asst.Agent Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam held in I.A.No.90/2011 in O.S.No.116/2011,

dt.04-06-2012 that the father of PW.2, PW.1, one Gandla Ratnakar are in possession of land at scene of offence ie., land in Sy.No.249/1, 250 at Sarapaka Village,

Burgampahad Mandal.

15.The accused No.1/DW.1 deposed in his cross-examination that he did not produce any document to show that the land at scene of offence belongs to him and he raised cotton, eucalyptus plants and ITC Company supplied any plants to him. He also admitted that he did not produce any FIR copy to show that he sustained injury in any accident nor filed any document to show that he filed petition before Hon’ble Court at Khammam for compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident. Even 8 though, he produced Ex.D1 certificate to show that he got treated at Nikitha hospital from 26.07.2012 to 28.07.2012 the Doctor who treated A1 is not examined. It is settled law that mere marking of document does not amount to proof of its contents unless it is corroborated with other facts when it is disputed by other party. Ex.D1 shows that it was issued on 19.09.2019 ie., after 7 years of treatment allegedly taken by A1.

DW.1/A.1 admitted in his cross examination that Ex.D2 shows that he is suffering with 55% disability. Ex.D3 shows that he has 85% disability. In these circumstances, the contention of learned A.P.P. that there is discrepancy with regard to percentage of disability between in Ex.D2 and D3 and the doctor who treated. A1 is not examined and Ex.D1 was issued after 7 years of examination of A1 by doctorand documents regarding to accident are not produced, hence the A1 is not entitled for benefit of “

Alibi “ as contended by learned A.P.P. has considerable force.

16.Admittedly, there are civil disputes between complainant party and accused party with regard to ownership of land at scene of offence and many cases are filed by one party against other party and the same is admitted by PW.7/ the investigating officer. PW.2 admitted that A1 is a physically challenged person and A4 is a woman and A3 is an employee of BPL Company and Pws.1 to 4 are physically fit persons. IN this casePWs.1 to 5 are related to each other. No independent witness is examined.

Alleged offence against accused is registered for wrongful restraint, threatening, abusing Pws.1 to 5 for that no physical fitness is necessary. Admittedly, Pws.1 to 5 are not local people and they are permanent residents of Guntur whereas accusedare native ofscene of offence. In these circumstances the contention of learned counsel

for accused that no inpdependent witness supported the case of prosecution is not

tenable as nobodyo wants to interfere with land disputes between 2 parties and admittedly Pws.1 to 5 are not permanent residents of locality whereas accused are local people at scene of offence.

9

17.On perusal of evidence let in by prosecution Pws.1 to 5 who are victims supported the case of prosecution and PWs.6 mediator for drafting of crime details form PW.7/investigating officer supported the case of prosecution. The real dispute between the parties is with regard to ownership of lanld at scene of offence and PW.1 produced Exs.P4 to P.10 to show that they are owners of land at scene of offence.

Dws.1 to 3 even though deposed that A1 and his family is in possession of land at scene of offence for the past 20 years. DW.2, DW.3 deposed in their cross examination that they do not know who is real owner of land at scene of offence.

Admittedly the real dispute between parites is with regard to oownership of land at scene of offence. It is true the contention of learnedcouonsel for accused is that there is every cahnce to Pws.1 to 5 to file false cases against accused to grab land of accused. But record shows that alleged offence was occurred on 27-07-2012 at 06.30 a.m and on the same day at 10.15 a.m Ex.P1 report was lodged which shows that the

PW.1 lodged report without delay and prompt report by PW.1 is one of the circumstances supporting the case of prosecution. The prosecution has proved the intention of accused to commit the offence keeping in the mind the civil dispute between both parties. On perusal of evidence it clearly established by prosecution that the accused wrongfully restrained Pws.1 to 5 and threatened them with dire consequences and abused them. The prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.294(b), 341, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. The point is answered accordingly.

18.On questioning quantum of sentence the accused No.1, 3, 4 pleaded mercy by stating that A1 is a physically challenged person and A4 is woman and A3 is only bread winner of his family and as A2 failed to attend before this court even though conditional order is passed he lost of opportunity of being heard on Quantum of sentence.

19.Considering the nature and gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that the accused are not entitled foro benefit under P.O.Act or under Sec.360 Cr.P.C. But, 10 considering the fact that the real dispute between parties is with regard to ownership of land at scene of offence and admittedly there are many cases filed between both parties with regard to ownership of property, I am of the opinion that imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice.

20. In the result, A1 to A4 are found guilty of the offence U/s.294(b), 341, 506 IPC. They are convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C. A fine of Rs.500/- ( Rupees five hundred) is imposed on A1 to A4 each for the offence U/s.294(b)IPC. In default, they shall suffer S.I. for 1 month. They are also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/s.506 IPC. In default, they shall suffer S.I. for 1 month. They are further directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- ( Rupees five hundred) each forthe offence U/s.341

IPC. In default, they shall suffer S.I. for 1 month. There is no property as to Order. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C..

Typed to my dictation by the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of June, 2020.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution P.W.1. Gandla Narsaiah P.W.2. K.Srirammurthy P.W.3. Y.Sambasiva Rao P.W.4. B.Rambabu P.W.5. V.Trimurthi P.W.6. P.Laxma Reddy P.W.7. G.Prakash

For defence DW.1. Karri Ramakoteswara Rao DW.2. Guguloth Veeraiah DW.3. Shiva Koti Satyanarayana 11

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. report Ex.P.2. Crime Details Form Ex.P.3. First Information Report Ex.P4. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/A registered in the name of Gandla Ramarao Ex.P5. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/AA registered in the name of Gandla Purna Chandra Rao Ex.P6. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/E registered in the name of Gandla Narsailah Ex.P7. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.250/1 registered in the name of Gandla Ratnarao Ex.P8. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.250/2 registered in the name of Gandla Purnachandar Rao Ex.P9. Adangal copy for Fasli year 1421 in Sy.No.249/1/A registered in the name of Gandla Narsaiah Ex.P10.Copy of Order in I.A.No.90/2011 in O.S.No.116/2011 on the file of Spl.Asst.Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam.

For defence Ex.D1. Medical Certificate issued by Nikhitha Hospital, Bhadrachalam, dt.19.09.2019. Ex.D2. Copy of certificate issued by Chairman, District Medical Board, dt.03.10.2013 Ex.D3. Copy of Certificate issued by Government of Telangana, dt.12.03.2015.

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam . Corrections carried out by me:

C.C.No.812 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

BHADRACHALAM

Wednesday, this the 17th day of August, 2022.

Present: Sri C.Suresh,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.812 of 2015 Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhadrachalam Town. …Complainant

And

Takkari Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.Late Tonkadhar, age.43 years, Occ.Poster Allurukota Sangam, R/o.H.No.6-15, Askkani Road, Donkarai, East GodavariDistrict of Andhra Pradesh State. … Accused * * * This case is coming before me on 17-08-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri D.Adinarayana, Learned Counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case arising out of the charge-sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhadrachalam Town P.S. against the accused in Cr.No.134/2015 for the offence

U/sec.153-A IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case according to the charge-sheet are that on 21.07.2015 at 2000 hours the defacto complainant/Yeruva Vinod Reddy,

S/o.Venkatami Reddy came to P.S.Bhadrachalam Town and lodged a report stating that he was working as Karyakartha in Bajarangadal to Godavari base and on 21.07.2015 at about 1700 hours when they were moving near Shirdi Sai bab temple, Kunavaram road, Bhadrachalam the accused who was the priest of

Christianity was distributing the Christianity pamphlets in the name of God Jesus to the Devotiees of Godavari Pushkaralu devotees and he was insulting the Hindu

Gods by stating that “Yesu Kristhde Lok Rakshakudu Ayananu Matrame

Prardhinchandi lenicho meeku Narakaloka Prapathi Kaluguthundi “ and he was showing the different languages of bibles and published said bibles.

1 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015

On receipt of report from LW.1, the LW.7/HC-1581 of P.S.Bhadrachalam

Town had registered a case in Crime No.134/2015 U/s.153(A)IPC. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence in CDF in the presence of mediators and seized wall posters in the presence of mediators and on 21.07.2015 the accused was arrested, on interrogation, he confessed to have committed the offence, after completion of formalities of arrest produced him before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.153(A) IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.153(A) IPC against the accused and the process was issued.

4.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation. Charge U/Sec.153(A) IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 6, got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and M.O.s 1 to 3 on its behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides arguments.

2 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015

8.Now the point for determination is:

whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence U/Sec.153(A) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

9.POINT:

In precise the case of prosecution is that on 21.07.2015 at about 1700 hours when the PW.1 and others were moving near Shirdi Sai bab temple, Kunavaram road, Bhadrachalam the accused who was the priest of Christianity was distributing the Christianity pamphlets in the name of God Jesus to the Devotiees of Godavari Pushkaralu devotees and he was insulting the Hindu Gods by stating that “Yesu Kristhde Lok Rakshakudu Ayananu Matrame Prardhinchandi lenicho meku Narakaloka Prapathi Kaluguthundi “ and he was showing the different languages of bibles and published said bibles. .

Sec.153 A IPC reads as follows:

153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.— (1) Whoever—

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, 2[or] 2[(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,] shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

10.Learned APP deposed that evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the accused has committed the offence and she prays this court to punish the accused according to law. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused submits that the acused did not commit any offence but a false case is foisted against the 3 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015 accused to collect money in the name of Bajrangadal as to threaten minority people and no eye witness supported the case of prosecution to show that the accused was convassing christianity and possession of Bible and pamphelts is not an offence. Hence, he prays to acquit the accused.

11.The prosecution, in order to establish its case against accused, examined

Pws.1 to 6.

PW-1 deposed that on 21.07.2015 during Godavari Pushkaralu period while he was in Seva programme, LW.4/Srinivas informed him that accused was distributing Christian pahmphlets at Saibaba temple area in Kunavaram road of Bhadrachalam, immediately he along with Lws.2, 3 and some other Bajarangdal workers visited the scene of offence and found that accused was distributing pamphlets of Christian religion of devotees of Godavari Pushkaralu and accused revealed his name as Takkari Madhusudhan Rao, resident of Donkarai of East Godavari District and also confessed that accused was working for Christian Society and the neighbours informed them that he was making propaganda for conversion of Hindus into Christianity and by threatening them that otherwise they would go to “Narakam” . PW.1 further deposed that the devotees also informed that accused was threatening not to dip in Godavari, then PW.1 lodged report

before the Police under Ex.P1.

PW-2 deposed that on 21.07.2015 during Godavari Pushkaralu period while he was in Seva programme, LW.4/Srinivas informed him that accused was distributing Christian pahmphlets at Saibaba temple area in Kunavaram road of Bhadrachalam, immediately he along with PW.1, LW.2 and some other Bajarangdal workers visited the scene of offence and found that accused was distributing pamphlets of Christian religion of devotees of Godavari Pushkaralu and accused revealed his name as Takkari Madhusudhan Rao, resident of Donkarai of East Godavari District d and also confessed that accused was working for Christian Society and the neighbours informed them that accused was making propaganda for conversion of Hindus into Christianity and by threatening them that otherwise they would go to “Narakam” . PW.2 further deposed that the devotees also informed that accused was threatening not to dip in Godavari, then PW.1 lodged report before the Police under Ex.P1.

PW-3 deposed that on 21.07.2015 during Godavari Pushkaralu period while he was in Seve programme, LW.4/Srinivas informed him that accused was distributing Christian pahmphlets at Saibaba temple area in Kunavaram road of 4 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015

Bhadrachalam, immediately he along with PW.1, LW.2 and some other Bajarangdal workers visited the scene of offence and found that accused was distributing pamphlets of Christian religion of devotees of Godavari Pushkaralu and accused revealed his name as Takkari Madhusudhan Rao, resident of Donkarai of East Godavari District and also confessed that accused was working for Christian Society and the neighbours informed them that accused was making propaganda for conversion of Hindus into Christianity and by threatening them that otherwise they would go to “Narakam” . PW.3 further deposed that the devotees also informed that the accused was threatening not to dip in Godavari, then PW.1 lodged report before the Police under Ex.P1.

PW-4 deposed that in 2015 during Pushkaralu period to Godavari river on one day while he was present near Saibab Temple, he noticed accused that accused was distributing pamphlets to devotees by stating that “Yesu Kristu Okkadevudu and he only save the people and at that time Police visited the scene of offence and at the request of Police, he, LW.5/Sai Kiran enquired the accused, then accused revealed his name as Takkari Madhusudhan, a resident of Donkarai of East Godavari District and also confessed that accused was working as priest of a church and convassing christianity to the devotees who visited Bhadrachalam for holi dip during Pushkaralu and on accused confesion Police seized 2 bible books, ie., bible in Telugu Language under M.O.1 and Bible in Oriya Language under M.O.2 and 45 pamphlets containing matter as “Mruthyamjayudu Prapanchaniki Oke Okkadu” Evaru ?” Telugu Language under M.O.3 under a cover of Ex.P2 panchanama in their presence. PW.4 further deposed that police also prepared a rough sketch in their presence under Ex.P3 in their presence.

PW-5 deposed that on receipt of information on 21.07.2015 at 5-00 p.m he alongwith District Pramuk visited Sai Baba Temple, Bhadrachalam and fouond that accused was distributing pamphlets for convassing Christianity containing matter byinsulting Hindu gods as “Yesu Kristude Loka Rakshakudu AyananuMatrame Prardhinchandi lenicho meeku Narakaloka Prapthi Kaluguthundi”, then they informed the same to the Police, then Police visited the scene of offence and taken accused to the Police Station alongwith Bible and along with pamphlets to the Police Station.

PW-6 deposed that on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW.1 he registered a case in Crime No.134/2015 U/s.153-A Cr.P.C and issued FIR under Ex.P4. PW.6 further deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 3 and PW.5 and in pursuance of confession of accused he seized M.O.s 1 to 3 from your possession under Ex.P2. He prepared rough sketch of scene of offence along with 5 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015

CDF in the presence of PW.4, LW.5 under Ex.P3. PW.6 further deposed that he handedover the CD file to LW.8/Sri O.Murali, the S.I. of Police, who later filed chargesheet in this case after completion of investigation and he identified the signature of LW.8/O.Murali, S.I. of Police.

12.On perusal of the entire evidence of prosecution, it is noticed that the incriminating material was made out against accused that he was distributing christian pamphlets at Saibaba Temple. On close scrutiny of evidence of PW-1 to 6, though Pws.1 to 6 deposed at lenghthy but none of them deposed against the accused that the accused was distributing christian pamphlets at Saibaba temple and any of them is eye witness to said incident.

13. On perusal of the entire case record and also perusal of the evidence of

I.O/PW-6 it is noticed that no such incriminating material appeared against the accused. In so far as the I.O./PW-6 evidence is concerned it is merely the evidence showing the manner of investigation and cannot be regarded as corroboration to the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and as such his evidence is not useful and does not lend any corroboration to establish the alleged offence against accused. Though, the pamphlets and bibiles were seized at the scene of offence, but there is no evidence to connect the accused with alleged offence as he promoted enemity between classes.

14.Allegation against the accused is that he was distributing pamphlets to devotees who were attending during Godavari Pushkaralu and threatened them to convert them into Christianity. To prove the case against accused prosecution has examined total 6 witnesses. Pws.1 to 3, 5 said to have witnessed the incident and

PW.1 is the complainant. He deposed that PW.5 informed him that the accused was distributing christian pamphlets and immediately he visited scene of offence and neighbours informed that the accused was making propaganda for conversion of Hindus into Christianity by threatening them that otherwise they would go to “Narakam”. PW.2 another eye witness deposed that the neighbours informed them that the accused was making propaganda for conversion of Hindus into 6 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015 christianity by threatening them that otherwise they would go to Narakam. He also deposed that the devotees also informed that the accused was threatening them not to dip in Godavari. PW.3 another eye witness also deposed that the neighbours informed them that he was making propaganda for conversion of

Hindus into christianity. PW.5, another eye witness deposed that on receipt of information he visited scene of offence, where he found the accused was distributing pamphlets for convassing Christianity and the pamphlets containing content insulting Hindu gods as “Yesu Kreesthude Loka Rakshakudu, Ayananu mathrame Prardhinchandi lenicho meeku Narakaloka Prapthi Kaluguthundi” and they informed the same to Police and Police brought the accused to Police Station.

PW.4 who is mediator for Crime Details Form and drafting of Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama who deposed that at request of Police on his enquiry the accused revealed his name as Takkari Madhusudhan Rao, a resident of Donkarai village and in pursuance of confession of accused Police drafted a confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama and seized M.O.1 Bible in telugu language and M.O.2. Bible in

Oriya Language and M.O.3 45 Pamphlets containing the matter “Mruthyunjayudu

Prapachaniki Oke Okkadu Evaru “. PW.6 investigating Officer supported the case of prosecution with regard to visiting scene of offence and arrest of accused, etc.

15.It is contention of learned counsel for accused that the scene of offence is not declared as temple city and the accused has a right to possess bible and pamphlets. Admittedly, Pws.1 to 3, PW.5 are not eye witnesses to the incident of the accused convassing for Christianity and they deposed that the neighbours informed the same to them and no witness deposed that the accused threatened them to convert from Hinduism to Christianity. PW.1 to 3 admitted that the scene of offence is not declared as temple city. M.O.1, M.O.2 are holy bible books and the accused has a right to possess them. M.O.3 shows that it contains the matter as Mruthyunjayudu Prapanchaniki Oke Okkadu, Evaru “ which shows that it does not containing the matter threatening the other people to convert into christianity.

Even though the prosecution proved that the accused has possessed M.O.s.1 to 3 7 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015 it does not prove that the accused threatened any person to convert into christianity.

16.Another contention of learned counsel for accused that no sanction is obtained by prosecution for trial of the case against the accused for the offence

U/s.153-A IPC as required as per Sec.196 Cr.P.C. He also relied on a decision of

Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh in Dipak Diwan Vs. Amir Khan and another in

para No.39 it was observed that:

39. “In the considered opinion of this Court sub-para(4) of Nagawwa (supra) as noticed herein-above squarely applies to the facts of the present case as the complaint in question, on the basis of which cognizance of offence Under Section 153-A and 153-B of the IPC was taken without the previous sanction of the competent authority as mandated Under Section 196(1)(a) and 196(1-A)(a) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the complaint, as framed and filed, suffers from fundamental defect of want of sanction by the competent authority under the above-stated provision.”

In para No.40 it was observed as follows:

40. “As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated discussion, I am of the considered opinion that learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely justified in affirming the order by which learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant against the respondent No.1 for offences punishable Under Section 153-A and 153-B of the IPC. I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, being substanceless and merit-less as well. No costs.”

17.Sec.196 Cr.P.C reads as follows:

196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of-

(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153A, of Indian Penal Code, or 2 Section 295 A or sub section (1) of section 505] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) or

(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or

(c) any such abetment, as is described in section 108A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.

18.In view of the above discussion and in the light of principles of ratio laid down in the above decision and considering the fact that no sanction is obtained by prosecution for trial of the case against accused for the offence U/s.153-A IPC,

I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

8 Of 9

C.C.No.812 of 2015

19. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.153(A)

IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as envisaged U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

The M.Os.1 and 2 shall be handedover to a recognized Church in Bhadrachalam for proper utilization. M.O.3 pamphlets shall destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of August, 2022.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For prosecution PW-1. Y.Vinod Reddy PW-2. Oruganti Suresh Kumar PW-3. Sanikommu Ramahcnadra Reddy PW.4. Yekkanti Naresh Reddy PW.5. B.Srinivasu PW.6. Sri Ch.Venkateswar Rao

For defence: -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. Complaint given to police by PW-3 Ex.P2. Panchanama Ex.P3. Crime Details Form Ex.P4. First Information Report

For defence -Nil-

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1. Bible in Telugu Language M.O.2. Bible in Oriya Language M.O.3. 45 pamphlets

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Corrections carried out by me:

9 Of 9